Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles?

Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 

On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>

On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

>
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass
baubles.
How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic
attain
prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The
reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error
that a
child would know better than. However, we find universities
convincing
people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent,
such as
expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and
thoughtlessly
embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic,
slavish, and avoidable.

>
>
They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks
monopoly'.
>
(of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers)
>
You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel.
>
>
The cabal decides what they want you to think.
>
>
How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal.
>
>
>

The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who
couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept
curved space for a second.

Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood
that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it
stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and
forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel
lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the
doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person
would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as
a foolish fellow.

>
Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will
never intersect.

You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio
principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a
surface and its not curved.

>
If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might
intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's
strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my
experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and
turn through the field...

Fields can curve while space cannot.

"Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.